Deverus 2025-08-06 05:48 p.m.right then.
allow me to be frank, your honour: the only evidence, barring these affidavits, that plaintiff has presented which would indicate sado came into possession of any so-called "confidential" information is a screenshot of sado declining to represent them, nothing more. on the record, sado has indicated that he was told nothing beyond the fact that they were bringing action against defendants. the simple knowledge that plaintiffs are filing action is far from what one would reasonably consider protected information. while plaintiff contends that he has came into possession of protected information, the only thing to back this is their sworn statement, whereby sado has contradicted that claim with his own sworn statement on the record.
at this rate all we have is a game of he-said-she-said, and one party is either perjuring themselves or mischaracterizing the situation, but until plaintiff can produce more evidence to support their claims, we'll never know. at this rate, what you'd be ruling on is conjecture, which the state contends is far below the threshold required to disqualify counsel in this event, as courts before this have determined that "disqualification is not warranted absent proof of a reasonable probability that counsel actually acquired privileged, confidential information" Brown v Dist. Ct. 14 P.3d 1266 (2000) (emphasis added)
plaintiff has far from established reasonable probability that sado actually acquired any such information, your honour. any motion to disqualify him based on the evidence present here must be denied.